Skip to main content

About your Search

20130204
20130212
STATION
MSNBC 4
MSNBCW 4
CSPAN 2
CSPAN2 2
CNN 1
CNNW 1
LANGUAGE
English 24
Search Results 0 to 23 of about 24 (some duplicates have been removed)
BBCPARL
Feb 9, 2013 2:00am GMT
on trade and to some extent on foreign policy. where have a link up a far left further the phone of counsel and you. on the full range of global issues that were discussed within the you. and we're very much engaged in driving forward the single market. so the key principles of the prime minister speech can think i'm pensiveness flexibility. are absolutely ones that. officials are working on all the time. that is part of the coalition government approach. they are mentation of the referendum commitment the problems ago is for the conservative party and. and a future. parliament. and officials of that time subject is whether it's the government that really hasn't made much difference. and this is where they would have been doing anyway. well the key difference in the process peter's a statement about what we will be doing in the few tower. will approach in the future and shaping that debate. for the future. but it doesn't change the work of our officials are single market. on all the issues that on them ok no time frame a favorite politics the european parliament has just voted on earlier to
MSNBC
Feb 7, 2013 7:00am PST
in terms of foreign policy from the bush doctrine, from the bush era policies, but in many ways has followed them and has been handed this entire security apparatus, this particular program began in 2004, about 400 strikes have happened so far. about 3,000 people have been killed, mostly pakistan, somali, yemen. but you have had this sort of deafening silence for the most part from progressives and liberals around this. you have had a few voices certainly on the hill and even on your network to raise questions about it, but by and large, the president has been given something of a pass. i think also the public has moved beyond this in some ways. there's a post-9/11 new normal in terms of how the public looks at the prosecution of this war on terror. they see it, it seems to me, as a vast war, an endless war in some ways that might be best prosecuted in this way rather than those large land wars we saw in afghanistan and iraq of this sort of pinpointed targeting of folks seem so far to have found some positive backing from americans. >> the cover of "time" magazine is rise of the dro
FOX News
Feb 10, 2013 7:00am PST
on the president on foreign policy issues. >> eric: thank you, chris. those interviews are on the "fox news sunday" program that airs later on today here on the fox news chabannel at 2 p.m. and 6 . on the fox newschannel. jamie? >> jamie: you know what's coming up. the doctors are in for their sunday housecall. they'll tell us about a surprising new study that's raising concerns about the effects of a common supplement. it's been linked to heart disease. we'll tell you what it is. stay tuned. [ male announcer ] when it comes to the financial obstacles military families face, we understand. our financial advice is geared specifically to current and former military members and their families. [ laughs ] dad! dad! [ applause ] [ male announcer ] life brings obstacles. usaa brings retirement advice. call or visit us online. we're ready to help. learn more with our free usaa retirement guide. call 877-242-usaa.
FOX News
Feb 10, 2013 8:00am PST
. they have huge questions or senator hagel and his positions on how he would handle foreign policy, particularly with opposing sanctions on iran and north korea and israel. with that said, it was the secretary of defense secretary of, they did not do enough. so i think that there's these questions that need to be answered. as we know, it's been fox news covering this issue, ignored by the mainstream media. this is a moment in time we've loved an -- lost and embassador and several americans. >> one phone call, 5:00. >> one phone call. >> the white house would say the president was briefed by advisors. you served the president, george w. bush. >> that's right. when dealing with an attack, when american lives are in harm's way, we know that becomes quicklily a high priority for the president. if we know -- we know there's an attack going under way. >> what should he have done? >> i really think you have to step aside from being so focused on the election at that moment in time and make this one of your top priorities. >> should he have been back in the oval office behind the desk? >>
MSNBC
Feb 9, 2013 7:00am PST
and it is the lasting legacy of foreign policy. >> and that leave mes with the question because of so many ideological differences of president obama and president bush, but not on this. it suggests possibilities that presidents are just presidents and they always expand their kind of war powers which is one possibility, and the other is that the president nose something that i don't know about what constitutes threats to the national security, and the third is that well, on this one question, this president is just as hawk ish as george w. bush and any way to adjudicate the possibilities of what war means to the obama administration? >> well, i think that, i think that is absolutely right, it has been a continuation of the bush administration policies, and yes, administrations always try to push the outer bounds of the authority. but one thank is clear is that the laws of war have not changed even if the practice has changed. there are really three reasons that a country can, a state can use force outside of its borders. one, if it is the victim of an armed attack and second if the u.n. security coun
MSNBC
Feb 8, 2013 3:00am PST
troubled by it, as someone who's served in the white house on foreign policy. what bothered you the most about the way it was put together? >> let's separate it into two sets of issues. one is the criteria for when the united states does say a drone attack and the other is the process by which we make the specific decision. the criteria are simply not sustainable. for example, there's three. the first with is that it has to be imminent, the idea that the terrorists planning an attack are about to launch an attack. we don't know that. so you can't meet the first threshold you set. we don't wait till it's imminent because we never know. and that's clear if you look at all the drone strikes we've done, by the time someone has made the career choice to be a terrorist, we decide that they qualify as a potential target. indeed we go beyond that. so-called signature strikes, you target people who appear to be doing the sorts of things that terrorists tend to do. we set up criteria that we ourselves do not meet. we then say it has to be the capture is infeasible. you don't want to have to captur
Current
Feb 8, 2013 3:00am PST
of the narrative of what the rest of his foreign policy was like. >> sure. there would be hearings in the senate and in the house and it may be not in the house. under boehner but certainly there would be hearings and demands for full disclosure. >> there would be more foreign anger about it. it sort of goes to show, you know, how much president obama sort of changed the idea of, you know, of what he is about allows him perhaps more freedom to do some of these things than bush might have had given sort of how he is -- the beginnings of his foreign policy. >> the whole question of drones in the obama administration, are we letting him get away with stuff that we would never let george bush get away with? the question reed, somebody one to think about. 866-55-press. you know the toll-free number. the president is pursuing this double agenda right now, the sequester still loom can. i want to get to that in just a moment. but right now, he will give a speech on guns and a speech on immigration reform. he is pushing both. how do you assess the chances of bot
FOX News
Feb 8, 2013 8:00am PST
. anything anybody is upset about in foreign policy, or domestic policy or taxes or spending, even though there are other people in the administration that are going to take the hit for it or some of the blame should go to congress the president is going to take that hit with the voting public. did not cost him re-election, but it doesn't surprise me that someone like hillary clinton, who has now gone to retirement, and, you know, the blow of that already is there for her, was there for her before she left, i'm not surprised at all by that, jon. jon: it's my understanding you're in key west today, is that right? >> yes, i am. jon: take off your necktie, man. >> i came out of vacation to be with you guys, and i'm sorry for the snow that is coming your way. jon: we appreciate you showing up for work, playing with pain. while we're getting a blizzard joe trippi is down in key west with a necktie on, his self be imposed torture. thank you so much. jenna: he showed up as you point out and he did apologize for being there, and we accept. jon: always count on joe. jenna: we certainly do. her run
CSPAN
Feb 4, 2013 8:00pm EST
of jerusalem. i thought we would talk about current events and foreign policy. he said, i want to talk to about the city of jerusalem in the year 66. he said, the year 66, titus and the romans laid siege to the city of jerusalem. the city of jerusalem would not relent. years and years passed by. finally, up one person told him that if you want to take the city, you need to wait and be patient. inside the city, there is a problem. that problem will grow into a cancer and that cancer will eat away the very core of that community. if you know your history, what happened around the year 70 is the divisions within the city of jerusalem amongst the zealots and others became so significant that it weakened the city from inside. the rabbi told me that the city of jerusalem was taken in the year 70 by titus. he looked at me for a long time and i looked at him. he said, what is the moral of the story? i said, make sure there are no zealots in newark. [laughter] he said no. he said, the moral of this story is that if there is no enemy within, the enemy without tim do you know arm. he started growth -- goi
MSNBC
Feb 9, 2013 11:00am PST
.s. foreign policy for decades which many acknowledge they have, how is this different? >> targeted killings have not been part of the u.s. policy for decades. they were engaged in up until the 70s, the congress stepped up and president ford put a ban in place and they only reappeared after 9/11 because of the threat we now find ourselves in. so they're not something that we are used to doing. we are used to killing people in war, but weir not used to sending secret operatives or secret drones around the world, naming an individual person and deciding he's worthy of death and killing him. that is new and post-9/11 stuff and president obama is the person who upped the ante on this. >> what happens when another nation acquires and uses the same drone technology that we've been talking about and they exercise little to no restraint? >> you don't need a drone. all you need is a rifle. this is the sort of policy that you can apply to any sort of situation. the technology is the secondary question and once you decide that you can kill people for whatever reasons you like including your own citizen
FOX News
Feb 8, 2013 10:00am PST
of the polls said that basically people felt that democrats were the stronger party in foreign policy and stronger party in keeping, you know, america safe and terrorism. we've never seen that before. republicans have always won on those measures. whether or not it's the reality on the ground and you can point to each country it does seem to be a perception out there that this party is doing something to keep america safe. >> the perceptions change and perceptions clearly change when suddenly we discovered that in libya and in egypt we were not as beloved as president obama would have had us-- would have had us believe because he gave a beautiful speech in cairo. in fact, our popularity ratings in many of those countries. >> going back five years. >> are lower than they were under the last-- >> going back five years. >> under george w. bush. >> you're five years old on that statement. >> this is another perfect example. we supported what was supposed to be a freedom agenda in egypt and what do we have? we have a muslim brotherhood taking over. >> and mubarak in office a better move? a
CNN
Feb 8, 2013 1:00pm PST
for not leaking. and what we also see in this is that foreign policy is really run from the white house and not from anywhere else. this is a very white house centric national security team and i think that the president is, of course, first among equals. if you look at those people up on the screen, wolf, it is the president of the united states who made that decision on osama bin laden, hillary clinton and leon panetta wanted to arm the rebels and it was the president who decided differently. so it's very much center data. >> the president of the united states, who makes a decision over rejecting the advice, in the end it's up to him. >> of course it's up to him. what modern presidents center their policy in the white house and if the president is making decisions about his to him is who are the people next to him? and cabinets over the last decade or two, you have strong members of cabinets, no doubt about it. but the policymaking, more and more centered out of that oval office and out of the people who are in that small piece of real estate right around the president. >> what's the
CSPAN
Feb 4, 2013 12:00pm EST
campaigned on a promise that he would work to reform our immigration laws and legalize foreign workers in the united states. the president's policies were further shaped by the select commission on immigration and refugee policy that was created in 1978 under president carter. president reagan signed a bill into law on november 6, 1986. so six years after he first ran for president, he signed a law. this law was known as the immigration reform and control act. the process to finalize a bill was long and arduous. it took years; six years to be exact. in 1981, when i was a freshman senator, i joined the judiciary committee, and i was a me of the subcommittee on -- and i was a member of the subcommittee on immigration and refugee policy. back then subcommittees did real work. they actually sat down and wrote legislation. we had 100 hours of hearings and 300 witnesses before we marked up a bill in may 1982, a markup four years before the president had ever signed it. senator simpson chaired the subcommittee, and other members included senators thurmond, kennedy and deconcini. senator thurm
Search Results 0 to 23 of about 24 (some duplicates have been removed)